Cancer Researcher Fabricated Data

Sheng Wang leaves the Boston University School of Medicine and agrees to retract two published studies.

By Jessica P. Johnson | August 11, 2011

Breast tumorsNATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE

Sheng Wang, assistant professor of medicine at the Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM) Cancer Research Center until last month, committed research misconduct, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Research Integrity (ORI) announced last Friday (August 5). Specifically, the ORI determined that Wang fabricated data published in two 2009 papers in the journals Molecular Endocrinology (ME) and Oncogene, both of which Wang has agreed to retract.

The falsified figures show real-time PCR data—a technique used to locate genes and quantify their expression—and chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP)—used to determine how and where proteins interact with DNA in the cell—to support their conclusions about the HIC1 protein’s pivotal role in tumor suppression.

HIC1 (“hypermethylated in cancer 1”) is a protein known to suppress cell growth. The gene that encodes HIC1 was recently shown to be epigenetically disrupted in human tumors, and its expression has been linked to better outcomes in some breast cancers. Using both PCR and ChIP, Wang and his colleagues showed that HIC1 acts via a downstream protein called Brg1. In a follow up study, the researchers found that HIC1 is required for estrogen neutralizers—which combat certain breast cancers—to effectively suppress tumor growth.

The fabricated data affected six of the eight figures in the Oncogene paper, which has been cited 9 times, according to ISI, and six of the seven figures in the ME paper, which has not been cited. Though neither paper has yet been retracted, and neither journal could confirm whether it was considering such a move, Wang must retract them according to his agreement with the ORI. “The retraction of the articles is in accordance with the decision reached by the ORI,” Maria Pantages Ober, director of communications for BUSM, said in a statement.

But researchers say the impending retractions will not significantly impact the field’s understanding of HIC1’s role in tumor suppression, as the papers’ basic findings have been shown in other studies.

“This will not impact our paper, although it is, of course, very concerning,” Susan Cohn, professor of Pediatrics at the University of Chicago who cited the Oncogene paper, said in an email.

“Even if their conclusion [that HIC1 requires interaction with Brg1 to control cell-growth-related genes] was not correct, other studies have demonstrated that Brg1 can interact with other tumor suppressors, such as Prohibitin and TopBP,” added Danuta Radzioch, professor of medicine at McGill University in Montreal who also cited the Oncogene paper, in an email.

The details surrounding the misconduct remain murky. The ORI’s determination of research misconduct came after an investigation initiated by Boston University, according to a statement issued by Ober. The University would not release details of how suspicions first arose nor when the investigation began. According to Ober, Wang’s employment ended on July 15, but she declined to provide any further information on the circumstances of his departure or his current whereabouts. At the time of publication, Wang had not responded to The Scientist’s requests for comment. Douglas Faller, director of the Cancer Research Center at BUSM and a coauthor on both papers in question, declined to comment.

As a result of the ORI’s findings, Wang is ineligible for federal funding for 2 years. Wang’s acceptance of ORI’s sanctions is not an admission of guilt. As a common condition of ORI agreements, researchers are not required to do so, though an admission “could be considered a mitigating circumstance justifying a somewhat reduced administrative action,” John Dahlberg, ORI Division of Investigative Oversight director, wrote in an email to The Scientist.

Add a Comment

Comments

Anonymous

August 11, 2011

Theft, plagiarism, fabrication of data/observations in scientific work commonly now known as scientific misconduct was part of the scientific enterprise from ancient times; even towering figures in science (Leibniz for example) were guilty of it. Every time I read of this I feel very sad and betrayed.Michael Lerman, M.D., Ph.D.

Misconduct in different forms is a very serious problem, not only about isolated professionals but even for Institutions and Institutes that indirectly promote this kind of practices. Results in terms of impact factor are a premise to receive fundings and to stay in the top ten and other standards of excellence, conditioning the whole proccess of scientific production. Institutions also may have an important participation punishing responsibles of misconduct and cleaning their image.For example in clinical research, some papers about randomized clinical trials, with multiple participating centers, are used by different PI (some times more than 30) based on the single fact that they also have included a few pacients in the trial, ....this is not scientific production! but some institutions collect the derived impact factor from those publications and these PIs consider themselves as authors...

Falsification of data in a publication should lead to stronger sanctions than what is described here.Â Two years ineligibility to receive Federal support?Â That's not adequate!Â And the danger posed by falsified data is greater when the work is of medical relevance.Â Can you imagine if this phony work had led to clinical trials?Â

Two years of ineligibility to receive Federal grant support.Â Good grief -- honest, talented and hard-working scientists often have to wait longer than that to get grant support!Â

I reviewed a paper 2 weeks ago that was rejected. In it were 3 verbatim sentences from another paper on the same topic I just happened to read to catch up with the current field of knowledge. The paper was a rehash of the paper the sentences were taken from and another paper using a similar technique. The funny part was that the references for these papers were absent in the paper I reviewed and it wasn't a coincidence, it was theft.

Here is Australia, where there is no OSI like agency with real teeth, the scientists involved in data fabrication, if caught by journals, get away without any penalties. More powerful they are, more the system (their universities and funding bodies) tries to protect them by covering up. Data manipulation in science is like performance enhancing drug taking in sport.Â

Theft, plagiarism, fabrication of data/observations in scientific work commonly now known as scientific misconduct was part of the scientific enterprise from ancient times; even towering figures in science (Leibniz for example) were guilty of it. Every time I read of this I feel very sad and betrayed.Michael Lerman, M.D., Ph.D.

Misconduct in different forms is a very serious problem, not only about isolated professionals but even for Institutions and Institutes that indirectly promote this kind of practices. Results in terms of impact factor are a premise to receive fundings and to stay in the top ten and other standards of excellence, conditioning the whole proccess of scientific production. Institutions also may have an important participation punishing responsibles of misconduct and cleaning their image.For example in clinical research, some papers about randomized clinical trials, with multiple participating centers, are used by different PI (some times more than 30) based on the single fact that they also have included a few pacients in the trial, ....this is not scientific production! but some institutions collect the derived impact factor from those publications and these PIs consider themselves as authors...

Falsification of data in a publication should lead to stronger sanctions than what is described here.Â Two years ineligibility to receive Federal support?Â That's not adequate!Â And the danger posed by falsified data is greater when the work is of medical relevance.Â Can you imagine if this phony work had led to clinical trials?Â

Two years of ineligibility to receive Federal grant support.Â Good grief -- honest, talented and hard-working scientists often have to wait longer than that to get grant support!Â

I reviewed a paper 2 weeks ago that was rejected. In it were 3 verbatim sentences from another paper on the same topic I just happened to read to catch up with the current field of knowledge. The paper was a rehash of the paper the sentences were taken from and another paper using a similar technique. The funny part was that the references for these papers were absent in the paper I reviewed and it wasn't a coincidence, it was theft.

Here is Australia, where there is no OSI like agency with real teeth, the scientists involved in data fabrication, if caught by journals, get away without any penalties. More powerful they are, more the system (their universities and funding bodies) tries to protect them by covering up. Data manipulation in science is like performance enhancing drug taking in sport.Â

Theft, plagiarism, fabrication of data/observations in scientific work commonly now known as scientific misconduct was part of the scientific enterprise from ancient times; even towering figures in science (Leibniz for example) were guilty of it. Every time I read of this I feel very sad and betrayed.Michael Lerman, M.D., Ph.D.

Misconduct in different forms is a very serious problem, not only about isolated professionals but even for Institutions and Institutes that indirectly promote this kind of practices. Results in terms of impact factor are a premise to receive fundings and to stay in the top ten and other standards of excellence, conditioning the whole proccess of scientific production. Institutions also may have an important participation punishing responsibles of misconduct and cleaning their image.For example in clinical research, some papers about randomized clinical trials, with multiple participating centers, are used by different PI (some times more than 30) based on the single fact that they also have included a few pacients in the trial, ....this is not scientific production! but some institutions collect the derived impact factor from those publications and these PIs consider themselves as authors...

Falsification of data in a publication should lead to stronger sanctions than what is described here.Â Two years ineligibility to receive Federal support?Â That's not adequate!Â And the danger posed by falsified data is greater when the work is of medical relevance.Â Can you imagine if this phony work had led to clinical trials?Â

Two years of ineligibility to receive Federal grant support.Â Good grief -- honest, talented and hard-working scientists often have to wait longer than that to get grant support!Â

I reviewed a paper 2 weeks ago that was rejected. In it were 3 verbatim sentences from another paper on the same topic I just happened to read to catch up with the current field of knowledge. The paper was a rehash of the paper the sentences were taken from and another paper using a similar technique. The funny part was that the references for these papers were absent in the paper I reviewed and it wasn't a coincidence, it was theft.

Here is Australia, where there is no OSI like agency with real teeth, the scientists involved in data fabrication, if caught by journals, get away without any penalties. More powerful they are, more the system (their universities and funding bodies) tries to protect them by covering up. Data manipulation in science is like performance enhancing drug taking in sport.Â

Our entire society is messed up. Severe punishment can only patch the problem temporarily, but not effectively long term. Our entire education system is to blame. In such modern times, we are still using primitive education method not much different from that used in chimpanzee society. Scientists become no different from politicians and businessmen. That is why you find scientists cheating. In fact, the entire human culture lies on lying as a way of living. We lie to our children by fabricating fairy tales while asking them to be honest. Everybody lies their way to the top. The people on top are the champions of cheaters who have the greatest skills for not being caught.

Our entire society is messed up. Severe punishment can only patch the problem temporarily, but not effectively long term. Our entire education system is to blame. In such modern times, we are still using primitive education method not much different from that used in chimpanzee society. Scientists become no different from politicians and businessmen. That is why you find scientists cheating. In fact, the entire human culture lies on lying as a way of living. We lie to our children by fabricating fairy tales while asking them to be honest. Everybody lies their way to the top. The people on top are the champions of cheaters who have the greatest skills for not being caught.

Our entire society is messed up. Severe punishment can only patch the problem temporarily, but not effectively long term. Our entire education system is to blame. In such modern times, we are still using primitive education method not much different from that used in chimpanzee society. Scientists become no different from politicians and businessmen. That is why you find scientists cheating. In fact, the entire human culture lies on lying as a way of living. We lie to our children by fabricating fairy tales while asking them to be honest. Everybody lies their way to the top. The people on top are the champions of cheaters who have the greatest skills for not being caught.

As a society, we are eroding our own codes with the passing of each day. For all the amazing breakthroughs in medicine we have all enjoyed, we continue to witness examples of a breakdown in the integrity and moral compass of a small but growing number of members in the professional communities and that is a gross deterioration of a trust factor- hard to believe anything these days and that is seen in the way people see other people. P

As a society, we are eroding our own codes with the passing of each day. For all the amazing breakthroughs in medicine we have all enjoyed, we continue to witness examples of a breakdown in the integrity and moral compass of a small but growing number of members in the professional communities and that is a gross deterioration of a trust factor- hard to believe anything these days and that is seen in the way people see other people. P

As a society, we are eroding our own codes with the passing of each day. For all the amazing breakthroughs in medicine we have all enjoyed, we continue to witness examples of a breakdown in the integrity and moral compass of a small but growing number of members in the professional communities and that is a gross deterioration of a trust factor- hard to believe anything these days and that is seen in the way people see other people. P

Lewis E. Braverman MD now works at Boston University Medical Center after sexually assaulting all of his female endocrinology patients with indecent A&B of the breasts while he was at the state and federally funded medical center, UMass Medical Center, in Worcester. He received at least 3 million dollars in federal funding while he was there and has recovered at least 1 million dollars in pension funds since leaving the facility.

All of the assaults were witnessed by other doctors. He has received multiple teaching awards throughout the globe.

Lewis E. Braverman MD now works at Boston University Medical Center after sexually assaulting all of his female endocrinology patients with indecent A&B of the breasts while he was at the state and federally funded medical center, UMass Medical Center, in Worcester. He received at least 3 million dollars in federal funding while he was there and has recovered at least 1 million dollars in pension funds since leaving the facility.

All of the assaults were witnessed by other doctors. He has received multiple teaching awards throughout the globe.

Lewis E. Braverman MD now works at Boston University Medical Center after sexually assaulting all of his female endocrinology patients with indecent A&B of the breasts while he was at the state and federally funded medical center, UMass Medical Center, in Worcester. He received at least 3 million dollars in federal funding while he was there and has recovered at least 1 million dollars in pension funds since leaving the facility.

All of the assaults were witnessed by other doctors. He has received multiple teaching awards throughout the globe.

If you worked for a government research institute in New Zealand, the Horticulture and Food Research Institute (now renamed) in the late 1990s you could expect to be protected if you plagiarised and falsified data, and then shielded from redressÂ on the basis that dishonesty was rife in any caseÂ and withdrawing a publication would damage the reputations of both the offenders as well as the institution itself.Â The USDA and Mercer University in Atlanta were implicated in one specific instance.Â It is refreshing to see that some science organisations do care.

If you worked for a government research institute in New Zealand, the Horticulture and Food Research Institute (now renamed) in the late 1990s you could expect to be protected if you plagiarised and falsified data, and then shielded from redressÂ on the basis that dishonesty was rife in any caseÂ and withdrawing a publication would damage the reputations of both the offenders as well as the institution itself.Â The USDA and Mercer University in Atlanta were implicated in one specific instance.Â It is refreshing to see that some science organisations do care.

If you worked for a government research institute in New Zealand, the Horticulture and Food Research Institute (now renamed) in the late 1990s you could expect to be protected if you plagiarised and falsified data, and then shielded from redressÂ on the basis that dishonesty was rife in any caseÂ and withdrawing a publication would damage the reputations of both the offenders as well as the institution itself.Â The USDA and Mercer University in Atlanta were implicated in one specific instance.Â It is refreshing to see that some science organisations do care.